Talk:Previously on 24
Images I kind of like Jack having an image from each season. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC) : I see it as rather repetitive, but you can definitely restore it if you like. – Blue Rook 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)talk :: It's not something I'm hugely concerned about, its just that if we don't have it in one season, it looks a bit odd. I don't mind having it this way, I just think that maybe we should then also change some of the ones of Jack from other seasons to other things. If we can think of enough tidbits to write as the captions for the images. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 19:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Episode precedent I think we need to set some kind of episode guide precedent to show how all Previously on 24 segments should look on each episode i.e. in Season 1 episodes it mostly just says "Previously on 24" with a link to the page, and that's it. In others, it has no link to the page and just says what happened. Here's how I think they should all look. Previously on 24 : Previously on 24 * Jack Bauer did this. * President David Palmer went to London. * Tony Almeida died. If you think it looks OK, let me know. If no-one responds, I'll go ahead and do it. I think it's the sort of thing that's important to make look right. SignorSimon 07:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC) : Well, this is all done now, however I differed slightly from what I showed above - I linked to the Previously page in the subtitle, instead of repeating the words underneath. SignorSimon 08:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC) ::Tell me if you read this; otherwise I will have to find you in a week or two. My policy is to separate them by scene—i.e. those quick flashes of frames—and bolden only those characters with title cards in the scene. For example: "Jack Bauer, in his search for Amy Martin, makes an unlikely ally of Roger Stanton. OneWeirdDude 04:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC) ::: I know this isn't specifically addressed to me, but for what it's worth, I think I understand what you're getting at. My understanding is: yes, you're right, OneWeird, all flash-scenes do receive bullet-points but don't get a bolded character unless the character gets a card. – Blue Rook 06:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)talk ::Unless there are any objections, I'll implement this style on any remaining unwritten guides, as I'm going to try doing all of Season 4's today. Steve CrossinTalk/'''24 Wikiproject 07:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC) ::: That would be great, thanks Steve. You're familiar with Previously on 24/Season 4, right? It has all but two of the Day 4 Previouslys, so you can simply verify and paste those if you wish to save time instead of doing them from scratch. – Blue Rook 07:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)talk Steve, I don't mean to sound antsy but on your user profile you mentioned uploading images from Prev 1 and 4: don't bother, I almost have them all in my database and I was planning on uploading them soon!! --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 08:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC) *ORLY? Uploading them..er...today? I've already started capturing images :( Steve CrossinTalk/'24 Wikiproject 08:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Yeah but seriously, I've already got them all, so don't worry about it. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 08:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC) *Okay then, never mind :) Steve CrossinTalk'/'24 Wikiproject 08:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Specific character titles Should we note some of the characters' titles that changed during a season? For example, when Palmer was temporarily removed from office, "President" wasn't part of his name in the freeze frame; when Logan got bumped up, his title changed from "Vice President" to "President." So I'm thinking something along this format: President David Palmer - 22 (as David Palmer - 1) (The number of episodes isn't necessarily accurate, but that's the format I'd like to have considered.) -A.G. 2 February 2007 :He wasn't always President Palmer, but he ''was always David Palmer, so I'd do it more like: :David Palmer - 22 (as President D.P. - 21) Season 1 segments You could probably tell this because of their seemingly more sloppy freeze-frames compared to the later seasons, but is it worth mentioning that on the original U.S. airings, that the "Previously" segments weren't featured in the Season 1 episodes until their syndication runs? Just wanted to put that idea forward. -A.G. 31 January 2007 : That's not true. The Previouslies were featured in the original airings. --Proudhug 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC) :: Hm, OK. You could probably tell that I haven't watched this show from the beginning. The Season 1 DVD doesn't include them (and I know that for an absolute fact), however, so I based my assumption about the original airings on that. -A.G. 1 February 2007 : Yeah, they're missing from the S1 DVDs, but they definitely aired on TV, as I still have all of the original airings on VHS. You can tell they're missing from the DVDs because when the "The following takes place between..." part starts, the music usually cuts in jerkily, as it was carried over from the "Previously" section. --Proudhug 14:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC) ::In Australia, the previouslies are included in the DVDs. That's rather odd that's it not in both. --Conspiracy Unit 02:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC) : I think they're also on the Region 2 DVDs, too. The R2 VHS set also has several extra scenes that are missing from both the North American airings and DVDs, but aired in the UK. I'm not sure if they're on the Australian release, but perhaps. The scenes include Teri telling Nina she's pregnant in 10pm-11pm, and a longer shootout with Jack and the Drazens in the finale. --Proudhug 04:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Previously on 24 ::: Sorry, I got lost in all the arguing, but for this page (or indervidual season pages) I was thinking we could have for each episode a summary of what happened in the "Previously on 24...". We could then get pictures for it. At the top of the main article we could have a summary of the Previously on 24 and how it fits into 24 because I think it is one of the defining bits of the show. Or we could just argue... --24 Administration 20:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Thank you, 24 administration. I'll get working to improve it ASAP, as soon as we stop arguing and get some guidelines out. I don't want to argue anymore, anyway. So, some guidelines please? Also, thanks to Lord Alexo for adding some stuff and overhauling the article! Yay!--Conspiracy Unit 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC) : Do you guys like the bulleted list? It would also be easy to do a simple table. Pictures would be terrific - maybe something like this? 24 Administration, when you say how it fits into 24, what kind of thing were you thinking of? --StBacchus 12:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) :: Pictures will probably make the page even more huge that it already will be, but if they are included, they definitely need to be the actual screenshots. I always chuck at the hilarious facial expressions they freeze-frame on. --Proudhug 16:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) This article is really interesting idea, I think it could be more than a list of appearances though. Anyone got any ideas on what could be in it? --24 Administration 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC) : Something like this? Maybe with the non-featured previouslies added in, so we can see which ones got a name card and which didn't? --StBacchus 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC) :: I did include all of the previouslies. I just listed each card and all of the scenes that followed it. --Proudhug 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) ::: Oh oh oh. Yep, I see. Well, then...something like that? --StBacchus 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Yeah, that would be good, and maybe seperate pages for each season? --Conspiracy Unit 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Definitely if you're going to do the expanded version as it is now, each season should have its own page. I don't know if they ought to be subpages or each their own page, but somehow this way seemed good. I switched the line breaks to bullets for season 1, to see how it looks. It would also be really easy to do a simple table. --StBacchus 00:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Imbroglio : It might also be cool there were separate pages for each episode. Each page would recap all of the things that were shown in the previously for that week, plus we could include other stuff, like a detailed synopsis of that entire episode with pictures, a list of the cast members, memorable quotes from that episode, trivia, etc. --Proudhug 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) :: That would be so convenient. Then, if someone wanted the previously information for a season, all they'd need to do is look for it on the 24 individual pages! Let's delete all the cast lists, too. There's no reason anybody would want that stuff all in one place, when they could just check each of the 120 episode pages. Besides, it's taking up valuable server space. --StBacchus 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC) : Haha, such fun. We start out with such a small, harmless piece of information spread out over its 119 respective pages. Then we decide that it needs to all be on one page, so as to have all of the information in one convenient location. For whatever reason. It's not really cross-referencable stuff, but whatever. Then we decide that that page should be split up into several different pages because it's too much for one article! Every time I start think that okay maybe someone might find some use for what we're doing, it's completely changed to make it seem even less useful. : Also, where the heck did the elipsis come from? It's not in any episode I've ever seen. --Proudhug 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC) What the hell is the elipsis? And if you don't like this page, don't get involved in it, there are other admin users on this site. --Conspiracy Unit 03:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC) : Conspiracy Unit, the ellipsis is the "..." part of the article title. Proudhug, obviously someone finds the information useful, because someone has been arguing strenuously to include it. It doesn't matter if you, as one person, find this information useful or interesting or "encyclopedic." This is a community-driven resource, not your personal repository for 24 information. You don't own the wiki, and we don't work for you. --StBacchus 06:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) :: You completely missed my point. Or deliberately avoided it. --Proudhug 08:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Bacchus deliberately avoided your point? What, your angry at her for stealing your bit? --Conspiracy Unit 23:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) : Thanks for saying that, because I was starting to wonder if I forgot how to read or something. Proudhug, your point, as stated, is that our useless project is extra useless if it's on five pages instead of one. Because 5 = 120, I guess. I hope you can see why I focused on the "useless" part instead of the numbers part. : I will do my best to be clear. This page contains a simple count of all previously appearances. That gives a general overview, like an index. This page also contains links to five subpages. Each subpage will contain more detailed descriptions of the previouslies for each episode. Why subpages? This is why subpages. The information will be easier to read and edit on five pages than one. Although it may seem contradictory, the information will also be easier to read and edit on five pages than 120. I could also adapt the Research Files tables so it can all be displayed one page, but it's going require creating five more pages either way. : But there's good news. Since this is the Internet, we can have lots of pages and nobody who doesn't want to look at them has to see them. Those folks don't even have to flip past pages they don't like, because our encyclopedia isn't a book. And since it's all sponsored by Wikia, you and I don't even have to pay for all the bandwidth we're using. Does that about cover your objections? --StBacchus 04:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC) :: Thank you for your clear, mature, intelligent reply. I miss those from people sometimes. I'm sure you got it, but just to clarify, my entire point was to illustrate some of the absurdities of recent events. Someone requested a page be created, despite later creating the page himself. Okay, whatever. I saw absolutely no useful purpose for the page, and was never given any reason other than "it's interesting". Oh, and it puts all this "purposeless" information in one spot, which I'm all for, in theory. Then suddenly, this one page is too big and needs to be split into five pages. I was amusingly baffled by the irony of this. I realize that 5 ≠ 120, but regardless, the whole "information in one spot" thing has completely fallen apart. I've realized that I don't have the articulation skills to adequately explain myself about this issue, but it ultimately doesn't matter. Like you said, I don't have to read it if I don't want to. Perhaps this entire issue was less about the previouslies and more about trying to make people see the absurdity of their actions. :: ... says the guy who edits an online TV show encyclopedia. :-) --Proudhug 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC) :My apologies, Proudhug. I'm not trying to get under your skin, but I seem to have done so anyway. Are you always so welcoming? I just wanted some support, as before I launched into the project I needed to know someone had my back. Now that I know I have at least one friend/ally here, I won't bother asking your permission, as it'll just get personal and bitter like this has. So I did it, and I have support from one quarter and even 24 Admin saying 'interesting idea.' Despite this argument, I'm not going to leave over this, like someone else, and I'm just going to say 'Whatever', and continue working making certain articles better, and fighting to have the Mole page made featured article. And, if my little spiel doesn't result in my being blocked or the deletion of the page that I made my personal cause, the fine. At least I got it off of my chest. --Conspiracy Unit 07:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Proudhug, Conspiracy Unit requested the page because he didn't want to waste his time making something you would delete. That's not absurd, that's good sense. Sure enough, you did try to kill the page, on the grounds that it's not "interesting." That's bad policy for many reasons, not least of which being that it's totally subjective. CU can't prove this page is interesting any more than you can prove it isn't. There is only one fair way to decide what's interesting: if someone is interested, it's interesting. The same goes for "useful." Having created the page, there's still the organization issue. It's very important that people be able to find what they're looking for easily. I assume that's why you made three new pages out of the single sentence "Teri Bauer worked at the Uffizi Galleria in Florence, Italy" despite that all of them have exactly the same content. I'm not understanding why you think information must be on either one page or 120. We've got separate pages for Jack Bauer's actions before Day 1, on Day 1, and after Day 1. Isn't all the information about Jack Bauer supposed to be in the same place, or what? I didn't understand your objection to dividing big pages into smaller pages when it was about the Research Files, and I guess I still don't. If you can't explain what you'd rather see, maybe you could do an example? --StBacchus 15:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) : Yikes. I'm worse at explaining myself than I thought! : I never once tried to "kill" this page. Nothing I've ever said was meant to get this page deleted. Nothing about this page breaks the rules of Wiki 24, so technically, it's perfectly acceptable. All I've been trying to do is find out what use it would be. Like I said, if someone wanted to make a list of times Jack Bauer uses the word "is", I'd have posed all these same questions. I'm not asking anyone to delete or abandon the project, just to explain its usefulness to me. This isn't something that needs to be done, it's just a personal request that clearly can't be simply done, or it would have been, by now. If I wanted to kill the page, why would I spend an entire freakin' afternoon viewing all of the previouslies for S1 and compiling an annotated list of them?! I want the page to have usefulness, however I researched it myself and couldn't find any. Sure it's an interesting idea, I never said the page wasn't interesting, just that that's the only positive comment I've read about the page. : Your argument about multiple pages is completely backwards. You're the one that said it needed to all be on one page, not me. My point is that the information is already split up into its respective episode pages, easily locatable and viewable, and that's fine. I personally never understood why anyone would need it all in one spot (obviously it doesn't matter why), but you were quick to realize that the information needs to be broken down, anyway. Much like it already is. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's wrong, just funny. --Proudhug 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC) :: Not two weeks ago, you deleted a page for being "trivia." Nothing about that page broke the rules either (except the title, which you yourself have said should merely be changed), but you skipped putting it up for deletion and just got rid of it. When CU suggested Previously on 24, you said it was useless, insignificant, not factual, weird, pointless, and yes, not interesting. Don't take my word for it. Then, you came here and mocked our discussion on how to organize the page without offering any suggestions. Now you're saying you never intended any of this as any kind of argument against the page, you were just curious. :: Okay, but it would be great if you could consider how your words and actions are coming off to others. Right now, it seems like you might delete or fight against any page just because you don't think it's "useful" or "interesting" or "encyclopedic." All of those are subjective and unfair as criteria for inclusion. It's not good for the community to have that kind of pressure. :: Our goal here is a concise listing of the previouslies. This is simply a different way to look at the previouslies: with each other instead of paired with each individual episode. That might take one page or 10 pages, but it will never take 120 pages. The information is not easily locatable and viewable on 120 pages, it is scattered. For the purposes of examining just the previouslies, by themselves, five pages is similar to one page, not 120 pages. Five pages is not "much like" 120 pages, and I don't know why you keep saying it is. --StBacchus 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC) : Five pages is more than one page, which was the original goal as explained to me. If I'm the only one that sees the irony in this, that's fine, no big deal. : I hate to beat a dead horse, but for no other reason than to shut me up, could someone please give an example of a use for this page? As far as previouslies go, the extent of my brainpower tells me that someone one might wonder what happened in the previously for Episode X. I can't think of a reason why, but it's not impossible. To find that information, they go to the page for Episode X where the previously is detailed. If they want to know what happened in the previously for Episodes X and Y, they go to both of those previouslies. If someone wanted to read all of the previouslies, sure it might be a slight hassle to read all 24 pages (or 120 if you want the whole series, but again I question if someone would ever do that, and why). A previously is a recap of previous episode, obviously, but clearly someone wouldn't want to read all the previouslies just to find out what happened during the season, as we have both extensive and brief synopses of not only every episode but the seasons as a whole. The previouslies are choppy, incomplete and, as I've proven, quite arbitrary, so it'd be silly to use them as a resource. I guess someone might be curious to know how many times Kim Bauer's name appeared in the previouslies, but I already established that this means nothing. Her name appearing in a previously doesn't mean she was important to that week. Her name not appearing in a previously doesn't mean she wasn't important to that week. It's just the random choice of the editor. Would someone still find this useful? Really? Then I'm just curious why. : And not to stir the pot further, but 24 Administration inadvertently brought up part of my argument, above. "Previouslies are one of the defining bits of the show." This is quite my point. They don't define the show, like much of the other "interesting" "trivia" on our site does. Nearly every hour-long TV drama has a "previously on..." before each episode. How then does this "define" 24? : Ah well, who really cares. It sure is interesting! --Proudhug 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::As far as I know, 24 is the only show that includes the names of major characters in its 'Previously on...' segment. --Conspiracy Unit 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC) : Really? I'd be very surprised if that's true, but perhaps you're right. --Proudhug 16:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) :: Off the top of my head, I can say that Lost and Day Break do not. Heroes does mention the main characters' names, but they use narration instead of title cards (that show's previouslies match its comic book theme). Episodic dramas like Law & Order or CSI rarely use previouslies at all, because it rarely matters what happened last time. I would expect that only shows that are both serial and have large casts would bother noting the main characters' names. Like, soap operas maybe? --StBacchus 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC) The show isn't defined by Jack's home phone number, either. If we only wanted to hit the major points, we should be writing for Wikipedia. As Conspiracy Unit pointed out, 24 does do its previouslies differently than other shows. So there are three reasons to have this little hub of information about the previouslies: # Because they are stylistically unique to this show # To keep a count of which people and things are featured (information not on any other page of the site) # To examine the previouslies all at once Why examine all the previouslies at once? A person might wonder if the features are chosen arbitrarily (no; more on that later). Or they might want to look all the scenes selected and see if there are any patterns. For example, you could use the list of previouslies to... # Predict what will happen next # See if the selection has changed from season to season, and if so, how #* Have they given up featuring dead people? #* Is there more of a focus on minor or recurring characters? #* In season 5, do they still feel the need to tell us who Jack is? # See whether there is a bias towards certain characters or plotlines #* Are the most important characters featured most often? #* Do we see more of the CTU story, the White House story, or the civilian family story? #* Does the number of times we see a storyline represented reflect its overall importance to the season? (For instance, do we see a lot of Kim in season 2 despite her story's relative unimportance?) #* Are the scenes selected to bring the audience up to speed, to revisit the dramatic high points, or for some other purpose? #* Are women featured as often as men? Minorities as often as whites? You asked whether a character's being featured in the previouslies meant they were important to that week's episode, and found that it did not. From that, you concluded that the features are selected arbitrarily. First, I want to know how you're defining "importance." Second, you've set up a false dichotomy. If characters are not selected based on their importance in the current episode, they might be selected for any number of other reasons. Such as the character's importance in the previous episode, which is the one being recapped. Or, like Jamey's second feature, because she had been gone for two episodes and her storyline was returning with her mother's appearance at CTU. Or, like Jack Bauer, because he's the star of the show. If the features were really random or arbitrary, there would be no pattern. By definition, random = no pattern. But there are patterns in season 1: * Jack Bauer and David Palmer are featured every time. No one else even comes close. * Though Jack's family are the second and third most-featured characters in season 1, Palmer's family are never featured. * The only CTU characters featured are Nina Myers and Jamey Farrell. No George, no Ryan, no Alberta, no Milo, not even Tony. Just the two moles. * There's a very clear bias towards heroes rather than villains: Even without counting stars Jack and David, Kim and Teri and Janet are featured a total of 29 times. All the villains combined are featured 24 (counting Nina's 3 features before she was a mole). With Jack and David, and with Nina and Jamey always counting as villains, the count is heroes 75, villains 24. If it's not interesting to you, it's not interesting to you. But there are patterns to be found, and questions to be asked. --StBacchus 12:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) : Wow, I'm speechless. I asked to be shut up, but I think you just ripped out my larynx! I'm more than appreciative of the hard work you put into answering my stupid little question. --Proudhug 16:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) :: Oh, now. A stupid question wouldn't have taken that long to answer. Actually, writing that reply gave me lots of things to think about. If we can get all the data together before January 15, I'm going to test the predictive powers of the previouslies in season 6. So thank you, Bill. ^_~ --StBacchus 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Day 4, Logan When he was first creditted in a previously he was Vice President Charles Logan, but from then on he was President Charles Logan. Which should we put him down as? --Conspiracy Unit 00:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Season 6 I didn`t know where to put this, but in season 6, CTU has been featured in Previously... 2 times. One with Chloe (episode 4) and the other one with Buchanan (episode 5) You were right...i fixed it. Thanks for picking that up. :) --220.233.124.201 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Another thing I have to add: Tom Lennox (he rules¡¡¡) has been credited with 3 displays in "previously on 24) --- episodes 7, 8 and 9. tom lennox tom lennox has been featured in Previously...4 times and not 3 as it is now indicated. Time-specific pictures I gave Jack, D. Palmer, etc. pictures specific to their season, or part of the season, to reflect the continuous change in the series. Can we keep it that way? Because someone changed them so that Jack, etc. would have one picture each, regardless what the season. OneWeirdDude 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Categories I checked a few images from the "Previouslies" of Season 5, and they only had the category for "Images (Previously on 24)". Is that supposed to be the only category they should have, or can I add categories of the specific episode and the specific character shown on the image/card? Thief12 00:20, June 26, 2011 (UTC) : Episode categories are no good for those; it is a bad idea since the image material is from one episode, but the card appeared in a different episode. Adding either episode category will be confusing and contradictory. : Adding characters might be a bit weird but only since Jack will get something like 180 new images by default. I am not as strongly opposed to it as I am opposed to the episode categories. Thief do you support adding character categs? anyone else, Proudhug, Acer, thoughts on character categs? 02:06, June 26, 2011 (UTC) :: I don't see the problem with adding the episode category. The complete image (footage + caption) is distinctively from a specific episode, so no one's going to be confused. I don't think anyone's arguing that File:1x24ss05.jpg get a D1:12am-1am category, are they? Or that it's confusing and/or contradictory. As for character categs, I don't see the problem with including those either. --proudhug 02:57, June 26, 2011 (UTC) : Ep categs on those do not really serve any purpose. And yes I'm confident that it would be confusing! it is just the sort of thing that just creates needless work for work's sake and ground for complications with no real gain whatsoever. The characters sound good though. 05:11, June 26, 2011 (UTC) ::I really don't see how adding episode categories would create confusion. People that know enough about the show would know that the "Previouslies" feature images from previous episodes, but adding the category just tells us to which episode the "Previously" belongs to. It's not something I care about, either way, but just saying that I don't see how it might be confusing. As for character categories, I support adding them too. Thief12 05:17, June 26, 2011 (UTC) How could they not serve any purpose? They categorize which episode the images come from. No one's going to mistake something like File:Prev202x04.jpg, for instance, and think it comes from D2:8am-9am. If they do, they're a complete moron. Unless I've been completely mistaken over the years, the episode categories refer to which episode the image file comes from, not which episode the moment comes from. And the Previously images are all distinct and there's no way to confuse one with a "genuine" image from the previous episode. I can't think of a single good reason to exclude these files from the episode categories. --proudhug 12:28, June 26, 2011 (UTC) : New users immediately understanding all this is likely to prove a misconception. I'll always hate the idea but that doesn't matter. 07:06, June 27, 2011 (UTC) Halloo. I don't mind much either way about this categorisation but I do like the way every show image is categorised into the relevant episodes. It seems a bit odd to leave out the previously images - and I don't see that it would be too confusing as anyone wondering about the content being from the previous episode would see the "Images (previously on 24)" category which should instantly clear up their confusion. As for the character categs, well I have always disliked having them on the "images (split screen)" images, as they're not really great shots of the characters, and there's so much going on in those images I think it looks a bit weird when scrolling through Images (Jack Bauer). But if we have them on split screens, it makes sense to also have them on the previouslies--Acer4666 10:18, June 28, 2011 (UTC) Recent changes in listing I was tempted to undo the changes done by Alexisfan07, but I'll leave it there to see what everyone else thinks. Personally, I think the additions are needless and disrupt the flow of the article. Thief12 13:34, March 3, 2012 (UTC) :I appreciate a lot of effort has gone into counting those totals - but what are they based on? I remember a few times the freeze-frame that appears next to "counter terrorist unit" contains more than one person.--Acer4666 (talk) 14:51, March 3, 2012 (UTC) ::I like that the totals gives "faces" to the groups that they're listed next to. I mean, more often than not, the faces associated with CTU counted as towards that character's shots in my opinion. Often they even related to the person's storyline more than the character in later seasons even though it said "CTU" instead of "Bill Buchanan." The totals were for every time the person appeared, even if they appeared with others. So for instance, Tony and Michelle shared one in season 3 so they each got a count for that. This also gives some characters whose only shot (like Sarah Gavin or Arlo Glass) was in the CTU parameter some love. I just like that it includes more characters. It's not like they weren't shown. Why isn't their face as relevant as the words next to it? --Alexisfan07 04:56, March 6, 2012 (UTC)